Leave a comment

Comments 47

flyingpigs_live April 27 2016, 15:39:29 UTC
can't wait to vote for queen Jill Stein in November. SHE would be an actually worthy female president :) i'd probably still vote for her even if Bernie DID get the nod tbh.

(i live in a solid blue state before any Hillary supporters jump on me for "throwing my vote away")

Reply

natyanayaki April 27 2016, 20:26:10 UTC
i so badly want to support the green party but jill stein entertains anti-vaxxers and i...just...can't. i guess i wont vote for any president.

Reply

sugartitty April 27 2016, 20:41:30 UTC
I keep seeing this being mentioned about her here but I've never seen actual quotes from her about it. If it's true then yeah that's nagl, but I need hard proof.

Reply

natyanayaki April 27 2016, 22:48:53 UTC
hsdkjsah

i'm so annoyed right now. just a few days ago i saw an article in which she said that she believes in giving parents a choice in vaccines in order to keep the corporations that manufacture the vaccines (i'm paraphrasing), and i can't find it right now, i'm sorry.

what does "nagl" stand for?

Reply


wordnerd98 April 27 2016, 15:49:26 UTC
I can't believe Weaver sent out that email with photo of the Clintons and Trumps. That photo is years old and you can bet Bill and Hillary (and let's be real, Donald himself) and NO idea he's be running for president in 2016.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

(The comment has been removed)

(The comment has been removed)


britrawick April 27 2016, 18:09:11 UTC
lol the pretense by the media that these primaries have been a close contest is hilarious. If they were honest that would have stopped on Mar 1st at worst Mar 15 cause both Trump and Clinton wrapped up then, the rest has been a formality tbh.

As for the voter fraud stuff, i find it weird it keeps being framed as if HIllary has henchmen making sure thing go her way. Its been clear from the start to anyone who looked at demographics and voting patterns that Bernie's chances were really less than 5%. Why would she or the DNC try to mess with that?Lets not confuse incompetence with fraud.

Also can't take too seriously people who complain about voter suppression yet are ok with caucuses. That shit needs to go cause it actually is voter suppression. Not to mention completely out of date.

Ciao for now.

Reply

tabaqui April 27 2016, 20:57:25 UTC
I keep seeing comments about how it's somehow, mysteriously, Hillary/her campaign who is 'defrauding' voters. Just...what?

Reply

moonshaz April 28 2016, 01:21:05 UTC
Why would she or the DNC try to mess with that?

I know, right? The idea that it would be anywhere near worth the trouble, much less the risk of getting caught is laughable.

I hate conspiracy theories in general; most of them don't hold much water afaic. But this one is just plain silly.

Reply


clockstopper April 27 2016, 18:59:41 UTC
Can't say I'm surprised by any of this. While I've been a Sanders supporter since the start, I always felt like Clinton was going to get it. The narrative that Sanders needs to get out has been held strong by the media and will continue, probably even after he does get out. It will be about how he didn't get out of the race early enough. I doubt Clinton will struggle with votes, but I really hope she doesn't because I can already imagine it getting pinned on Sanders and his supporters ( ... )

Reply


screamingintune April 27 2016, 19:11:43 UTC
I expect Bernie will drop out and concede after the last primary. Hillary was closer to Obama than Bernie is to her and she waited until June 7 in 2008, so I expect he'll concede around the same time.

Trump, I think, may actually get the requisite number of pledged delegates. I'm starting to think neither side will be a contested convention, unless things just go haywire at the RNC, which is entirely possible.

Reply

dafuqgetoffmeho April 27 2016, 19:18:21 UTC
sweetmizre April 27 2016, 19:59:20 UTC
I feel like there is no way the GOP is going to let Trump get the nomination easily at the convention, even if he has the right amount of votes ... it isn't a democratic process after all. Their party will be damaged either way though.

Handing him the nomination is literally just conceding to lose the election in November.

Reply

sugartitty April 27 2016, 20:05:51 UTC
My impression is that they've already accepted that they're not going to win the election in November regardless of who they nominate. However, Trump would represent a total, utter defeat whereas they're hoping with Cruz that they can still recover in the future. It's lose/lose in 2016 though.

What I don't understand is why they didn't rally around Kasich earlier, since he's their one candidate who could have had a slim chance at defeating Hillary. He's dead in the water now, though.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up